The assorted musings of Hugo Schwyzer: a progressive Anabaptist/Episcopalian Democrat (but with a sense of humor), a community college history and gender studies professor, animal rights activist, ENFP Gemini, avid marathoner, aspiring ultra-runner, die-hard political junkie, and (still) the proud father of the most amazing chinchilla on God's green earth.

May 25, 2006

Words are not fists: some thoughts on how men work to defuse feminist anger

This is, I think, an important post.

I've been thinking about men in women's studies classes, and jokes about "male-bashing."

This semester's women's studies class is like most: overwhelmingly female. I've got 32 women and 6 men in the class. I met individually last Thursday with the women for "all-female day"; I met with my guys on Tuesday for "all-male day." This morning, we all got back together in the classroom for the first time as a full group in nine days.

Most of the guys hadn't spoken in class all semester; today, all did. A number of the women in class were eager to ask questions and create dialogue; up until this week, mine has been the only consistent male voice in the classroom. The guys did a great job of sharing about many topics (we spent a lot of time on the "myth of male weakness") But two of the guys did something that I see over and over again from men in women's studies classes. They prefaced their remarks by joking "I know I'm going to get killed for saying this, but..." One of them, even pretended to rise from his desk to position himself by the door, saying that "Once I say this, I know I'm going to have to make a run for it." Most of the women laughed indulgently, and I even found myself grinning along.

When men find themselves in feminist settings (like a women's studies class) they are almost always in the minority. When I was taking women's studies classes at Berkeley in the 1980s, I was usually one of only two or three men in the room. In my women's history classes over the past decade, men average 10-20% of the students, never more. Even when they make up as much as a fifth of the class, they generally do less than a tenth of the talking. That isn't surprising, given the subject matter -- I was often fairly quiet in my own undergraduate days.

But one thing I remember from my own college days that I see played out over and over again is this male habit of making nervous jokes about being attacked by feminists. In my undergrad days, I often prefaced a comment by saying "I know I'll catch hell for this". I've seen male students do as they did today and pretend to run; I've seen them deliberately sit near the door, and I once had one young man make an elaborate show (I kid you not) of putting on a football helmet before speaking up!

All of this behavior reflects two things: men's genuine fear of being challenged and confronted, and the persistence of the stereotype of feminists as being aggressive "man-bashers." The painful thing about all this, of course, is that no man is in any real physical danger in the classroom -- or even outside of it -- from feminists. Name one incident where an irate women's studies major physically assaulted a male classmate for something he said? Women are regularly beaten and raped -- even on college campuses -- but I know of no instance where a man found himself a victim of violence for making a sexist remark in a college feminist setting! "Male-bashing" doesn't literally happen, in other words, at least not on campus. But that doesn't stop men from using (usually half in jest) their own exaggerated fear of physical violence to make a subtle point about feminists.

There's a conscious purpose to this sort of behavior. Joking about getting beaten up (or putting on the football helmet) sends a message to young women in the classroom: "Tone it down. Take care of the men and their feelings. Don't scare them off, because too much impassioned feminism is scary for guys." And you know, as silly as it is, the joking about man-bashing almost always works! Time and again, I've seen it work to silence women in the classroom, or at least cause them to worry about how to phrase things "just right" so as to protect the guys and their feelings.It's a key anti-feminist strategy, even if that isn't the actual intent of the young man doing it -- it forces women students to become conscious caretakers of their male peers by subduing their own frustration and anger. It reminds young women that they should strive to avoid being one of those "angry feminists" who (literally) scares men off and drives them away.

Here's where I need to issue a big ol' mea culpa. Until today, I don't think I fully realized how common this strategy of joking about male-bashing really is. I didn't realize how I, as a teacher, permit and thus encourage it. Too often, I've been so eager to make sure that my small minority of men feels "safe" in the classroom that I've allowed their insecurities to function to silence the female majority -- in what is supposed to be a feminist setting! Though I haven't made such remarks myself, I've laughed indulgently at them without stopping to consider their function.

Part of being a pro-feminist man, I've come to realize in recent years, is being willing to face the real anger of real women. Far too many men spend a great deal of time trying to talk women out of their anger, or by creating social pressures that remind women of the consequences of expressing that anger. Many men, frankly, are profoundly frightened by women who will directly challenge them. In a classroom, they don't really fear being struck or hit. But by comparing a verbal attack on their own sexist attitudes towards physical violence, they hope to defuse the verbal expression of very real female pain and frustration. I know that it's hard to be a young man in a feminist setting for the first time, and I know, (oh, how I know) how difficult it is to sit and listen to someone challenge you on your most basic beliefs about your identity, your sexuality, your behavior, and your beliefs about gender. It's difficult to take the risk to speak up and push back a bit, and it's scary to realize just how infuriating your views really are to other people, especially women.

The first task of the pro-feminist male in this situation is to accept the reality and the legitimacy of the frustration and disappointment and anger that so many women have with men, and to accept it without making light of it or trying to defuse it or trying to soothe it. Pro-feminist men must work to confront their own fears about being the target of those feelings. Above all, we cannot ever compare -- even in jest -- verbal expressions of strong emotion to actual physical violence or man-bashing.

After all, one of the pernicious aspects of the "myth of male weakness" is that men can't handle being confronted with women's anger. We either run away literally or figuratively, disconnecting with the television, the bottle, the computer screen. But we're not little boys who will physically lash out in rage when challenged, nor can we be so fearful that we dodge and defuse and check out. That's not what an adult does in the face of the very real emotion of another human being.

I've allowed this kind of joking and defusing to go on too long in my classes. It's going to stop now.

UPDATE:

Please don't get into thread drift here. This is not a forum to question the basic tenets of feminism, or issues of domestic violence and abuse, or why I've banned anyone in the past. I'm going to be much more careful about monitoring what is posted here. This is not a free speech zone, nor need it be. It's my blog, and y'all have other forums for discussing gender issues.

Comments

It's my experience, rather, that far too many women know that they can get in the face of a man, thump fingers in their chests, slap, smack, kick and the like that would get their butts kicked if they were men - and often it is done deliberately to put men in the fight or flight mode, and since they are programmed to never, ever, hit a woman back, that they will run, or shut up and take it.

I've been teaching and counselling men for a long time that it is right to be offended at such things, and right to demand to not be subjected to disrespect and verbal bullying, even if it is by a woman; that to hide behind tears, or an expectation of deference based on sex is cowardly no matter who it comes from.

If I had a grievance with a woman I would be expected to become calm and rational, speak my piece in such tones, and to sit and listen to "her side" without becoming defensive or invalidating it. And - at least according to the rhetoric I hear - I would think it would be "anti-feminist" to hold women to a different standard - just because they are women.

Totally overlooked in your theory - and I used overlook because I don't think it ever really hits the radar, not because it is purposefully ignored, mind you - is the application of Occam's Razor: that these men may very well be leery about being shouted down without being heard , or having something chucked at them, or getting smacked - precisely because that has been their experience.

There's no conscious purpose - there's not a great male conspiracy to keep "da woman" down. There's no fear of confrontation, there's an exasperation at being drawn into yet another fruitless argument that is going to end in tears, and him looking like a big bully no matter what happens. Far to often are demands for "dialogue" code for "You shut up and let me talk" and demands for "growth" code for "You abandon your convictions and embrace mine."

Let me posit something - if I took one of your classes, and participated in the class was good, but consisted of questioning a priori assumptions, if my papers were critical of the assigned reading, or reached a counter to accepted wisdom conclusion, if my essays took the "disagree" tack, and if at the end of the class I said "I am more convinced of my original POV now than I was when I started," then what grade could I look forward to?

Well - *you* might still grade me well, I'll give you that. But, what grade do you think the average women's studies instructor would give me? And how many do you think would ask me to drop the class?

Yeah, I can hear it; "If you get insulting and refuse to grow..." As in, like I said, "Abandon my convictions and embrace someone elses?" And, why is it that "disagree" is automatically assumed I'd be hostile, unless, of course, the whole notion that I'd go somewhere else besides that same conclusion to be prima facie evidence of bad faith? And if that is why - who is it showing "bad faith?"

As usual, a provocative post. First, I have to apologize for offering comment knowing beforehand I don't have the time to really do it justice. But I have to (at least partially) contest one of your premises:

"All of this behavior reflects two things: men's genuine fear of being challenged and confronted, and the persistence of the stereotype of feminists as being aggressive "man-bashers."

In my own college days, one of my classes included about 50% minority students, which was somewhat unusual in my field at that school. During one session in particular, discussion centered on opportunities and race. The discussion included a fair assessment of "reality", as well as talk about sources of the current status of things and possible remedies. As a "suburban white boy" (TM), I found it difficult to comfortably join the discussion (especially when I disagreed with a statement made by a minority classmate) without prefacing my comment with something to lighten the tension.

I didn't do this because I was a white man worried about being challenged or confronted. Rather I felt the need to do this to lessen the possiblity of my remarks seeming insensitive or bigoted when compared to the view of a minority student much closer to the topic at hand.

I use this example to suggest that the men in your class might have been using humor as a way to make themselves feel more comfortable joining in a class discussion where the subject matter and class ratio might tend to make things less comfortable.

I'll second the "great post" comment, but I am not convinced that this sort of defusing is necessarily a bad thing. I think it's fairly common -- and extremely valuable -- whenever people representing two opposing viewpoints are conversing and one side is numerically much larger than the other.

For instance, most of my family is religious, but not me; nevertheless we still frequently, and civilly, discuss religion and its impacts on society. I find myself often making little joking asides much like the men in your class do -- "I have a feeling you all are going to kill me for this, but.." Of course they never do, and I never feel in actual danger.

But I think the ability to make such an aside has two salutory effects: (a) it makes me more comfortable raising something that I feel sure they are going to strongly disagree with, if I preface it by some acknowledgement that I know how much they are going to disagree with it; and (b) the joking air reminds people that we are in a civil, informative conversation; that what I say isn't intended as an attack, and that whatever they say in response isn't either. And because it's joking and deliberately humorous, it makes people laugh and thus defuses any potential tension much more than just saying "I know you might disagree with this..." would.

I just worry that by prohibiting your guys from making these type of comments, you would stifle discussion and also create an environment where it's harder to use levity as a tension-breaker.

Of course, your concerns are legitimate: perhaps you could discuss this with your classes and see what they think? I have a hunch that if you just raise the issue, people will still be able to use this sort of aside (and thus have all the good effects of it) but everyone will also be much more conscious of what negative messages it might be sending, each time (and thus you'll mitigate the bad ones).

Maybe you could suggest to them a different phrase with which to convey their discomfort, desire for civility, willingness to accept disagreement, etc.. I don't know what that might be, but they might feel more comfortable having a phrase they can confidently use.

I'm 50 and female. I don't even know how to be angry; it was beaten out of me at an early age. The best I can do is cry when those feelings overcome me, so subsequently I have become very, very good at anger avoidance because tears only make one look foolish.

I don't know who these women are that Gonzman is talking about, but I sure haven't seen a lot of them in my lifetime (and yes, I've also worked in mental health for 20 years). I'm sure there are a few; there are far more men who not only don't want to listen, they don't want to hear anything that might disturb their view of the world.

Those men in Hugo's class are simply doing what I (and many other women who are afraid to anger men) have done every day of my adult life.

I certainly have no intention of banning certain comments -- I'm just going to be better about talking to the entire class about the whole red herring of "male bashing."

Gonz, you're conflating violence against men off campus with violence on it (and in the classroom). I'll grant that women do physically assault men, just as I'll grant that people sometimes bite their dogs. But as with dogs and biting, the reverse is far more common (and know, I'm setting the rule here, this is not a thread to revisit DV statistics). No male student could possibly have a reasonable expectation of physical violence for making a sexist statement in a women's studies class.

I know I've used phrases like, "You all are going to jump all over me for saying this, but . . " or "I hate to say this, but . . . ." Thinking back, I think I use them when I think that my opinion is going contrary to the vast majority of people that I'm conversing with. Following Rayven's suggestion of an alternate phrase, for me, if I were going to be honest, it would be something like, "I'm worried about saying this because . . . " or "I feel like this isn't going to be a popular idea," or "I feel like I'm the only person who thinks this, but . . ."

Now, what exactly I'm afraid is going to happen is a good question. I think it boils down to worry over what people will think about me if I say it. But I think the next time I feel the impulse to say it, I think I'll ask myself, "What, exactly, am I afraid of?"

Good point, Carol, but I don't think it's simply a matter of being afraid for no good reason. (Which may or may not be what you meant; I'm using you as a springboard for a general comment).

Someone might legitimately be afraid of shutting down the discussion (by being misinterpreted as being antagonistic) or of accidentally giving offense (similar to what James said: if you hold a minority view but aren't sure if it's because you're wrong about something or just different, it can be scary to speak up, especially if the consequences of being wrong could offend a lot of the people you are speaking to). The "don't kill me but" phrase is very useful in both of those situations.

In short, I think sometimes there are good reasons to consider what other people will think: not because it's important to have them like you, but because part of being in a conversation is doing your best as speaker to make sure you are interpreted as you intended, which involves getting in the listener's heads and caring about their response to some extent.

Hugo, if you were teaching a men's studies course with only 5-6 women attending and the rest men and the women prefaced their comments by saying something similar to what has been described in your post would you assume that their reasons for doing so were anti-masculine? Would you treat them in the same manner you plan to treat these young men? Would you say something like this:

switcheroo:

Too often, in this men's studies class, I've been so eager to make sure that my small minority of women feels "safe" in the classroom that I've allowed their insecurities to function to silence the male majority -- in what is supposed to be a masculinist setting!

or how about one like this:

It's a key feminist strategy, even if that isn't the actual intent of the young woman doing it -- it forces male students to become conscious caretakers of their female peers by subduing their own frustration and anger. It reminds young men that they should strive to avoid being one of those "angry masculinists" who (literally) scares women off and drives them away.

Would you be telling the women that they really needed to listen attentively to men's anger? Something tells me you wouldn't be treating the ladies quite the same. I will be curious to hear your response.

Dr. E, men are not regularly the victims of rape and sexual assault outside of prison settings. Men are not socialized, as women are, to endlessly soothe and care-take the feelings of the other sex.

I don't intend to rebuke anyone. I intend to call attention to the way that this joking reference to "getting killed" or "male-bashing" serves an anti-feminist purpose. We're all on a journey together here.

Rayven, I do think we need to be attentive to how our words will be perceived. But joking about "getting killed" is clearly different than an honest admission that one is worried about how what one says will go over. At least, it seems so to me.

The preface happens a lot, and what it does is make a large segment of people apologetic for wanting to disagree and hurt the speaker's feelings.

I think the thing to do is call people on this language. If they say "I know I'm going to get attacked for this, but..." then ask them why (a) they feel they're going to be attacked; (b) they decide to say it anyway; and (c) they feel the need to tack on the disclaimer. I think that while some people who use this disclaimer may be actively trying to put their respondents on the defensive, most of them are just unconsciously falling back on conversational habits that have worked in the past.

Dr. E, men are not regularly the victims of rape and sexual assault outside of prison settings. Men are not socialized, as women are, to endlessly soothe and care-take the feelings of the other sex.

You're right, we're no socialized to soothe or anything like that - we are socialized to surrender, to give in, to apologize even when we are right whever there is an angry or upset woman. Be chivalrous. Ladies first. Let the girl win.

Occam's Razor, again: The simplest explanation that fits all the facts is not that there is some great male conspiracy to put women down, to shame them, to silence them - it's that these guys, from disparate and disconnected backgrounds acting the same way are doing so because their experience shows them that they will be ganged up on and verbally bullied, and if they resist at all, fault will be laid at their feet.

Point blank question: Does it even hit the radar that there might be a degree of that? That these guys do get jumped on by deviating from party line, that they are jumped on in an uncivil and disrespectful fashion, and that it is condoned? That they might feel that speaking their mind and defending their position, however civilly and rationally they do it will be rubricized as somehow being from a position of bad faith and mean-spiritedness, while all but the farthest extreme of the most uncivil attacks on them will be excused, justified, and rationalized away?

Or are they, again, just evil and broken males who need fixing, while the women are once again totally and completely justified, sugar and spice, etc. etc. etc.?

Rayven, I do think we need to be attentive to how our words will be perceived. But joking about "getting killed" is clearly different than an honest admission that one is worried about how what one says will go over. At least, it seems so to me.

I guess this is something where YMMV, then, cos I honestly don't have the same impression -- maybe if it were delivered in tones of fear, then yes; but when it's deliberately exaggerated and caricatured for effect, part of what makes it funny is the realization by everyone in the room that the guys in question are in no actual danger. In other words, it's only funny if male-bashing is not a real danger and everyone knows it. (By contrast, imagine the same scenario but for a woman in a roomful of men: if she pretended to don a football helmet and beat a path to the door it would be far less funny, and that's because of the looming spectre of all those women who do get beaten for having contrary opinions).

But this might just be personal opinion, and we can be free to disagree here. I'm curious about what your students think when you broach the subject.

Well, one student who reads the blog constantly stopped me in the hall on the way off campus today to say she totally agrees. But she also thought that some of the guys might NOT see things the same way.

I agree, Rayven, that it is different when the guys do it -- which is why I want to call them on it and ask the exact same question you do, which is what it would be like if a woman did it.

Gonz, I agree that men in a women's studies class take a considerable risk when speaking up. And yes, I have heard some cruel remarks directed from female students to their male peers. Far be it from me to endorse the "sugar and spice"/"snips and snails" theory of gender relations! It is risky and scary to speak up. But it isn't helpful to try and posit yourself as the potential victim when you're a member of the dominant group.

I certainly don't think most young men (I was in their shoes once) sit and think "I'm going to joke about male-bashing in order to disarm those who might find my remarks outrageous". But that does seem to be, at least at times, the consequence, intended or not.

Dr. E, men are not regularly the victims of rape and sexual assault outside of prison settings.

Rape and sexual assault, no. Every other category of violent crime, yes.

Men are not socialized, as women are, to endlessly soothe and care-take the feelings of the other sex.

Maybe not on Planet Hugo, but just about everywhere else, hell yeah. That's one of two reasons why we're having this conversation about men in feminist classes, rather than vice-versa. The other is that "masculist" classes do not exist.

Men are not socialized, as women are, to endlessly soothe and care-take the feelings of the other sex.

Maybe not on Planet Hugo, but just about everywhere else, hell yeah.

My corner of the world is a heck of a lot more like Planet Hugo. The "don't upset people," "don't rock the boat," "don't hurt other people's feelings," "be nice" sentiments are directed overwhelmingly at women vis a vis men *and* the group as a whole.

Dr. E, men are not regularly the victims of rape and sexual assault outside of prison settings. Men are not socialized, as women are, to endlessly soothe and care-take the feelings of the other sex.

Why would the location of a rape matter? As you have said men are also victims of rape. Gonzo has given you a good sampling of how men and boys are socialized to sacrifice for women and girls. Men have been dying by the hundreds of thousands in wars while women have sat safely at home. Yes there are women who die in wars but not even close to the number of men. Men have been deprived for decades of the loving experience of raising children due to societal expectations of being the sole breadwinner. Boys and girls, men and women have both had some hard knocks. One is not an oppressor and the other the oppressed. Treating one group as if they have been victims and the other as if they have been the perps is missing the mark by a long shot. All people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and you seem to be saying that you feel it is okay to give women special treatment and not the men. This is called bigotry.

UNPCDad and Dr. E I'm letting your recent comments stand. Your previous one was deleted for tenor and tone; this blog is for civil discussion of feminism and faith. Please be mindful that MRAs have countless forums (fora?), and while I welcome those who are willing to engage the specific issue, constantly telling me over and over again that I'm a mindless misandrist perpetuating a double standard that hurts men and boys is, frankly, getting old. Stand Your Ground is the place for you.